- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12784 CP No. 468 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL PETITION NO. 468 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. ROOPA B., W/O JAYRAJ, D/O LATE BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 52, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BANGALORE – 560 098 MOB. 9535416991 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. JAYRAJ S/O YELAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT VADDRALLI VILLAGE, V.PURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 572 132 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RAJESHWARI G.SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESH K.M., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO BE PLEASED CALL RECORDS IN M.C.NO.58/2024 PENDING OF THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AND TRANSFER THE ABOVE PETITION FROM HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT TO 5TH ADDL. FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12784 CP No. 468 of 2024 THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of M.C.No.58/2024 filed by the respondent/ husband pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Channapatna to the V Addl. Family Court at Bengaluru. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 08.06.2014 at Channapatna. In view of the differences between the parties, initially on 01.07.2023 the wife had filed Crl.Misc. No.529/2023 seeking maintenance against the husband which is pending before the V Addl. Family Judge at Bangalore and after service of notice, the husband had appeared and filed his objections and the case is coming up - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12784 CP No. 468 of 2024 for hearing on interim maintenance. Thereafter, on 21.08.2024, the husband had filed M.C.No.58/2024 seeking divorce. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that the distance between both the places is about 60 kilometres and it is difficult to the wife to travel. It is stated that she is unemployed and she is depending upon her parents. 5. The objections are filed by the respondent/ husband stating that she is working and earning an amount of Rs.22,000/- and odd per month. No document is placed before this Court in that regard. It is also submitted that the husband is working in a Gram Panchayat and as he is a public servant, it is difficult for him to travel from Channapatna to Bangalore. He has to take care of his old aged parents. He has undergone the eye surgery, for that he has to take rest for 3 months. Under these circumstances, he cannot travel. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in case - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12784 CP No. 468 of 2024 of Harpal Singh Vs. Sonia Singh1 wherein the Court finds merits in the contention of the learned counsel that the exercise of transferring the case from the district Court Karkardooma to District Court, Rohini may be actuated by requiring the respondent to spend money fresh on account of engaging of a new counsel. Accordingly, dismissed the petition. She has also relied on another judgment of the High Court of Ernakulam in case of Meria Joseph Vs. Anoop S. Ponnattu2 wherein the Court had held that originally the petitioner is a permanent resident of Pala. Her husband, the respondent also has been residing in Pala. These transfer petitions have been filed only on the ground that the petitioner shifted her residence at present to Attingal, that too in a rental house. Hence, shifting a permanent residence to a temporary residence, that too in a rental house by itself is a ground to transfer the pending cases within the jurisdiction of the permanent residence of both the parties. The rational is; in the case of temporary residence, particularly rental accommodation, the same is not at all static and it can be changed for any immediate reason. If 1 LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-358 2 2022 Supreme(ONLINE)(KER) 3577 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12784 CP No. 468 of 2024 cases are transferred to such temporary abode, again and again cases will have to be transferred, when the temporary residence, being shifted. Therefore, availing a temporary residence either by way of rental accommodation or otherwise shall not be a ground to allow transfer of cases. Relying on these judgments, the learned counsel submits that the pending M.C. at Channapatna cannot be transferred to Bangalore as it would cause lot of hardship to the husband. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Admittedly, the wife is staying in Bangalore along with her parents and the distance between both the places is about 60 kilometres. The four contentions that are raised is with regard to that the wife is employed and earning more salary. Second is that the husband is working as a public servant. Third is that the husband is having an eye issue and he has to take rest for 3 months, fourth ground is that he has to take care of his old aged parents. This Court do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent and all these grounds are not the valid grounds for not transferring - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12784 CP No. 468 of 2024 the cases from Channapatna to Bangalore. The judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. No material is placed before this Court with regard to the salary the wife is earning or the job she is doing. Just because the husband is a public servant, cannot be a ground not to transfer the case. Considering the fact that she is staying at Bangalore along with the parents, the distance and the fact that even before he filed a M.C.No.58/2024, the wife had filed Crl.Misc.529/2023 before the Court at Bangalore i.e., on 01.07.2023, the husband had filed M.C.No.58/2024 and he has to contest the said M.C. before the Court, for that he has to come to Bangalore. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. The M.C.No.58/2024 filed by the respondent/husband pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Channapatna is withdrawn and the same is transferred to the V Addl. Family Court at Bengaluru. ii. The wife shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12784 CP No. 468 of 2024 iii. Accordingly, the civil petition is Allowed. iv. All I.As., in the civil petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17